.NET: It's All About Trust

Since revealing its plans for Hailstorm, the first phase of a strategy shift from shrink-wrapped software to .NET-based services, Microsoft has found itself at the center of a steadily brewing controversy. Software developers who have historically backed Microsoft platforms have generally rallied around the .NET strategy, but the company has plenty of critics who aren't that excited by the notion of an Internet dominated by Microsoft technology. The problem isn't so much the technology, however, but the company itself. With its reputation falling steadily since the frenzied days of the Windows 95 launch, Microsoft just doesn't have a positive image in many circles. And with many feeling that the company will escape relatively unscathed from its antitrust problems, there's a growing unease that Microsoft will use its market dominance to ensure itself a similar dominant position in the future.

Certainly, Microsoft is partly to blame. As it rose in power, the company did nothing to curb its competitive practices, which were acceptable for a small player, but arguably illegal for a company of its stature. For example, Microsoft announced nonexistent products solely to offset press releases from companies announcing actual products. For a company with no market share, such a tactic would hardly cause a ripple. But when Microsoft announces products—real or imagined—entire businesses can collapse. The history of the high-tech marketplace is littered with the carcasses of companies that had the bad luck to seize upon an idea that Microsoft later decided was important. Some of these companies, certainly, made mistakes of their own, and some were genuinely out-hustled by the Redmond giant. But some suffered fates that were questionable at best.

And then there are the conspiracy stories. Microsoft has reportedly grabbed user and PC information during certain product registrations, even when users specifically chose not to send such information. Microsoft updated its Product Activation feature, which performed well during tests with Office 2000 in select markets, and melded it into next-generation products such as Windows XP and Office XP. The goal is to prevent piracy, according to the company. But users are freaking out over the feature for a variety of reasons. In Windows XP, Windows Product Activation (WPA) ensures that you can install each copy of the OS on just one PC. For users accustomed to installing Windows on two or more PCs in their own home, this represents a serious limitation, despite the fact that the Windows license has legally forbidden this practice for a long time. For people concerned that Microsoft is mounting a Big Brother-like campaign to spy on users, WPA looks like the opening salvo in a battle for control of their PCs.

Many of these complaints are, of course, bogus. And for those complaints that aren't, there are often innocent explanations. But fairly or not, Microsoft's products are seen as insecure and unsafe. Given this, and considering the company's history of questionable business tactics and illicit behavior toward its users, do we trust Microsoft? Do we trust it to build the infrastructure for the future?

A lot of rhetoric has circulated about this topic in the weeks since Microsoft's Hailstorm announcement in late March. When Microsoft announced its .NET strategy last summer, many analysts laughed at what they deemed yet another vaporware campaign from Redmond. But Hailstorm proves that .NET is not only real, but that it's happening. So the laughter has subsided, and in its place conspiratorial questions about the company's motives have arisen. And not surprisingly, Microsoft competitors such as AOL and Sun have asked the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate Hailstorm to determine whether it constitutes an abuse of Microsoft's market power. Microsoft has finally followed through on a product thought to be vaporware, and it might just land the company in court again.

Is this something we need to worry about? Do you trust Microsoft to deliver on the security, stability, and availability that the next-generation Internet is going to require? Click "Post a comment" to let me know what you think.

Discuss this Article 28

Andrew Notarian (not verified)

on Apr 20, 2001

I think one of the reasons Windows and Office have proliferated to the point it has is that it was so easy to install it on numerous copies off of a single CD. While WPA would initially mean more money in Microsoft's pocket, I could see their marketshare diminishing as Linux becomes the most economical option for those wanting basic word processing and Internet functions. People did not like the idea of Intel being able to track a CPU or Windows Update sending information about their configuration, they will rally against WPA. Anyone who doubts this just needs to look at the massive numbers of people rallying for the blatantly illegal exchange of copyrighted music.

I have been in the software industry for 20 plus years.
I agree that some of MS marketting tactics are questionable. But if MS did not market aggresively than they would be introuble with thier share holders. If I look at other companies including the one I work for then they to are aggressive. Thats business.
As for trust. Well who else do you suggest we trust ?

I believe we brought this on to ourself, many of my small business customers will never buy more than one license for five plus workstations.
Then again nor do they follow the advice to buy a decent tapedrive, and are willing to wait 10 plus hours to back-up and never try to restore.
It seems inevetable, but we can always not buy, or sell.

.NET is Microsoft's attempt to make nice with programmers. Don't be fooled! Microsoft has plans for programming domination!
Remember when MS-DOS 5 shipped with Office and it used VB scripting for applications? This was part of Microsoft's plan to dominate programming because Windows came with no BASIC interpreter, and therefore you couldn't convert your own scripts into the machine code when using Windows!
Jason M. Laurvick has witnessed documentation and he conceeds that although Microsoft created the most modern of programming tools (Visual C++) this is a prime example of why Microsoft is not to be trusted. They are unwilling to allow open source because innovation could surpase their DOM of doing business! Laurvick believes they do not have proper function/procedure definitions, so users are dependent on them and Microsoft = manipulation! Laurvick proclaims "Users Rise Up and Smell the Code!"
~~~ For Laurvick, the entire Linux kernel fits into their binaries several times over! But then there's J++... okay, don't get me started!

As a Developer, Microsoft has always been formost in my thoughts...I could turn to Linux & Delphi but then I would be out of a job...if I am going to make a career change then I may as well open a fish & chip shop as going against Microsoft will be challenging.
I believe that the problem is change...people are scared of change & therfore scared of Microsoft's .NET strategy but from what I've seen, if Developers go with the flow it will bring exciting new application possibilities.

Hmmn, well it's not just Microsoft. I think people probably wouldn't trust Sun, AOL, IBM, Oracle or anyone else with the keys to their personal information. People just don't trust corporations, and why should they? Certainly the negative light that was shed on Microsoft during the recent anti-trust trial, and ongoing security issues with many of it's services and applications, hasn't really helped the companies image. But, you know, I don't really see many people using the Hailstorm services. Even Passport.NET, with it's "single logon" potential, raises questions (i.e. "what happens if my password gets stolen?"). Right technology, wrong application. And what happens if Microsoft gets hacked, and users private information is stolen? People don't even feel secure storing their personal information on their own computers, let alone anyone elses. I'd rather Microsoft plough it's money into web services that people really want (and are asking for), like realtime stock quote information.

I am excited to see Microsoft lead in this new technology. It is companies like Microsoft and Intel who worked so hard to make both software and hardware so cheap, and yet so powerful, for us that almost everyone can afford it.

I don't trust Microsoft to do anything except lie to us. They long ago got the last money I'm ever going to spend on their products. Each announcement regarding .NET or XP only brings more reasons to reinforce this position.

Why should we trust Microsoft? They are in business only for themselves and have proven only to have their own intrests in mind. They have us becuase - who else can we turn to? Linux is way to immature to roll out and use in my line of work.

Bring Hailstorm on Microsoft. Do it. I need the technology and I need it as fast as Microsoft can deliver it.

The same people who are complaining about this complain about everything else and they do not provide solutions for me to use.

To all the complainers. Get into the arena and provide the solutions or quit polluting the arena with your whining, conspiratorial venom.

I have absolutely no respect for people who spend their time hacking away at the roots of technological development in the name of protecting the people who did not deliver technology in a timely manner.

Let us not forget that there never needed to be a "Microsoft", but for the ego, obstructionism and lack of foresight of the rest of us.

Press on Bill and company, and by the way, the same to all of the other people and companies that get things done and fight the good fight in the marketplace.

Too many dependencies. Many of our current problems stem from reliance on others, so why would we want to expand that fault factor? Why would we want to make our business/client data even more widely available for others to hack? Most importantly, there is little valid business need for this type of technology. So we'll end up organizing our business to fit someone else's software? What's wrong with that picture? The technnology is entertaining, but not if it forces your business to fit it's needs.

Do I trust Microsoft with anything important to me? NO WAY!!! Trust has to be earned and Microsoft has not done anything to earn trust. By rushing products out the door for years, and therefore forcing competitors to do the same, they have almost single-handedly brought down the quality of software. Would you fly on a plane being controlled by Microsoft software? I think that would be the end of the airline industry.

Granted, they are improving but they have a long way to go. I don't trust their software or their motives.

For me, it is not a matter of trusting Microsoft as much as it is a matter of WHO is best suited to provide a quality product/platform for developers? I think the answer is clearly Microsoft! Yes, they may have exhibited some "bad-boy" tactics, but what businesses don’t do what is necessary to protect market share and expand product lines? That is why it is called business and not religion! If they do not do what is necessary to hold or increase profits then their stockholders get very unhappy. Unfortunately, it’s all about making money, nothing else. The quality and reliability are built in to their products for that sole purpose. Bottom line, I do not want Microsoft to be broken up, but I do want competition to somehow keep them competitive so we can continue to enjoy their superior products.

I don't put much weight behind the conspiracy theories. Sure. They make great reading, but they are, in my view, mostly things of fiction. After all, Microsoft is composed of people; plain, ordinary, flesh and bones. Anyone who's ever worked closely with them (other than, perhaps, tier one technical support) knows they're exceptionally bright, considerate people, not so unlike you and me. However, the allegations by Sun, AOL, and others will, of course, always involve conspiracy theories. Why? Because they do the damage they're designed to do without the need for proof. The reality is that Microsoft is just a company, trying to make a profit like any other company. The fact that they are so successful in their persuit of profits will always make them targets of conspiratorial smear campaigns. Nothing like a little envy to get the insults flying.

I don't think users have much to worry about anymore in terms of Microsoft possibly abusing its position as a provider of .NET services. I'm pretty sure that after the recent 3-year-long legal scrape it's been in, that Microsoft won't use trusted consumer information from .NET-enabled sites and services in an improper manner.

What I do still worry about is the safety of that information from hacker probes once it's hosted on Microsoft's servers. We all know about all the security holes in IIS, and it seems that keeping up with all the security patches requires you to reboot IIS servers at least once a week. As a person who administers IIS as part of his day-to-day job duties, I'm thankful that the sites I'm responsible for are only internal ones. It seems that something is just basically wrong when an unpatched IIS server as installed from the CD has defenses that resemble Swiss cheese more than anything else. It's bad enough that there are a few IIS boxes out there right now which host access to my credit card information. I don't need it hosting access to my complete credit history, all my loans, my mortgage, and everything else.

This could be just the first step in dominating the web. Funnel everything through Microsoft - I don't agree with it. As far as the smaller picture, software piracy or stealing, Microsoft is inconveniencing the many more legitimate users for the smaller number who steal the software. If you don't have Internet connection (and I don't trust Microsoft as far as what they say they will do with that connection to your computer), you have to use the phone. It is a lot of bother for what essentially boils down to greed. You can see by the profits generated that the software is overpriced to begin with. They could probably cut piracy 50% simply by pricing their software fairly. As has been pointed out in other venues, many users of pirated software would not buy the product at any price. Some just like to learn about and play around with the software. Piracy is a concern with many other products, not only Microsoft software. The manufacturers of other products that are pirated do not seem to be going out of their way to antagonize and inconvenience consumers.

Why does the competition always have to go whining to the Government? Let them spend their own money not the taxpayers. The old cliche "If you can't stand the heat, get out!" In most cases the others would do the same if they were capable or had thought about it first. We live in a very unfair world. No,MSFT is not all roses by any means, but thanks, in a large part to them, the average person can understand and operate computers. Thanks MSFT!

Microsoft is not the first very large corporation to have a difficult time responding to customers and product problems. If this industry is to move to the internet as the backbone of applications, the inovation and vision necessary is unlikely to come from Microsoft.

Microsoft is the Point on the Sword of IT technology to me,a one person company.Understandably at that point you cut both ways while bringing innovation to me not available anywhere else.Yes I trust MS,and have great personal response when I need help.That is something I cannot say for MSoft competitors that have kept me on the line for hours,and no solutions to my problems.

I seriously doubt that Microsoft can deliver the kind of trust/security required for the coming Internet age. Its integity is in question here.

Hailstorm relies on Passport but is Passport really a well guarded information repository? I have a Passport account because I was "forced" to have it in one way, and this is where I think Microsoft will gain support on its Hailstorm platform.

No doubt Microsoft has come up with sound technologies. In fact if one found them to be "irresistable", one would consume them and forego the concern of security that Microsoft is providing. I think it all has to do with our quest with technology.

So if Hailstorm can come up with technologies attractive enough, it would gain support. I do not doubt that Microsoft has the kind of momemtum to make this happen.

Someone should look over Microsoft's shoulder (constantly) on the Hailstrom platform in the handling of security and users' privacy. This "someone" must be an organization that Microsoft revere, or better fear!

Interesting thought: Microsoft's Passport, Hailstorm; are we citizens of Microsoft?!

I definitly don’t trust micrsoft between other things because we ‘re in diferent sides i’m a client...they a company with a target in mind… profit.

I never like monopolies but the situation that the market is today is fault of all of us because we complaint about security of IIS, NT and windows, etc, etc but we all use them and we all put that company in first place.

About new situation in XP application, I don’t like at all neither any other IT professional will… what can we do than put here some lines of our thoughts???…

I don't trust Micrfosoft as far as I can throw them. Their s/w quality is poor. I wish a REAL COMPUTER vendor could step in and take over. Windows is a technical joke as far as I'm concerned. P.S. All we use is Windows, nothing else save a single DEC VMS system.

Microsoft have created a standard of sorts in the Windows operating system and the Office applications that mean the vast majority of people can do useful work interchanging information. I am old enough to remember the pre Microsoft days when every company used incompatible word processors and computer systems so it was the devil's own job to exchange information. Now we don't think about it, everyone can read and write in Word or Excel format.

From that point of view having a standard that doesn't take years to to agree amongst committees or standards bodies is great. (I personally don't know why companies in IT who develop CD formats or DVD formats or anything else that is going to be widely used, don't always compromise and come up with a common standard as they will always win in the end as everyone will buy something if it is compatible).

As far as the XP thing, I think it is time that MS realised the benefit of home users using the software for free or for very low cost. There is no doubt about it that if home users could make free copies of their work software or obtain it at very low price it would benefit everyone. A) because they would spend their own time getting familiar with the software and thus be more productive in work. B) be more supportive of MS products because they have learnt the MS application way of doing things and would want to do the same at work.

I think that the need for pirate copies of MS Office or Windows would diminish greatly if the prices were realistically low for home users with the same levels of support that the user gets now (ie realistically none other than via the net). Business users could be charged the current prices or maybe a little bit more than currently, but get full telephone support included as they tend to have more pressing problems that need resolving more quickly.

I think that the XP idea may be Microsoft's first big blunder, and it might just be the turning point for the vast majority of people to start looking at Linux and Star Office, particularly as the Linux creators are finally getting their install routines simple enough for mere mortals like me to use them.

A more ethical approach by Microsoft and a little less of the marketting boys would be beneficial.

As a long time MS advocate (for all the good things they have done and there are many on balance) the direction MS is taking has moved my business away from MS towards Open systems. Maybe just maybe my customers will forego the good parts of MS technology for the freedom of other offerrings.

Whilst I am sure MS consider the new XP licensing to be beneficial to their bottom line, they will loose the very people that made MS a success. Home users who had MS on their PC's at home and demanded to use it in the office helped MS make the big time. If the retail licensing is prohibitive to these users then they will go elsewhere. When they go elsewhere they will demand what they use at home in the workplace, maybe it will be Star Office maybe something else but they will find it.

The endless pursuit of profit (at any expense, the customer) has been the downfall of many a large company. IBM forgot about its customers in the 80's and lost out big time as the customers deserted in droves. Maybe just maybe MS will have the same problem if the direction it is taking makes it prohibitive to use its software.

I hope that some common sense will prevail in MS soon (or has it just grown too big?).

I like the products (but not at any cost).

I like what they have done to IT over the last 20 years. My own personal association with MS has been very good but its getting harder to do business with MS and on their behalf the story is difficult to support.

Prehaps they have just got to the too many rules, managers and marketeers threashold, rather than the entreprenurial spirit which has been so successful todate.

I hope they do not keep treading their current path, the partnership has (ups and downs) primarily been good to date.